The Language Learning Strategies Used by Students of

The Language Learning Strategies Used by Students of

Merchant Marine Studies Polytechnics Makassar

Nilam Sari Rustam

[email protected]

Arifuddin Hamra

[email protected]

Sukardi Weda

[email protected]

State University of Makassar, Indonesia

ABSTRACT

This thesis aims to (1) to investigate the kinds of language learning strategies the

merchant marine polytechnics students use in learning English, (2) to investigate

the most dominant language learning strategies used by successful and

unsuccessful students, and (3) to find out whether or not the successful students

employ different language learning strategies from the unsuccessful students. The researcher applied descriptive quantitative method. The population of this research

was the students of merchant marine polytechnics of Makassar in academic year

2014/2015. The sample was the fourth semester students of nautical study

program, class C which consisted of 30 students. This research used cluster

random sampling technique. This research used 2 kinds of instruments; they were

English skill tests and questionnaire. The research data was collected by using

English skill tests and SILL questionnaire which were analyzed by descriptive and

inferential statistic through SPSS 20.0 for windows program.The result of the

descriptive quantitative data showed that (1) the nautical students of merchant marine polytechnics used six kinds of language learning strategies namely

metacognitive, compensation, social, memory, cognitive, and affective strategy (2)

the most dominantly used language learning strategies among the successful

students is metacognitive strategy and the most frequently used language learning

strategies among unsuccessful students is social strategy (3) there is a difference in

using language learning strategies between successful students and unsuccessful

students. The six language learning strategies were employed by the students in

learning English. The successful students employed two kinds of language learning strategies; metacognitive and compensation strategy while the

unsuccessful students employed four kinds of language learning strategies namely

social, memory, cognitive, and affective strategy.

Keywords: Language Learning Strategies, Successsful/Unsuccessful Students,

Metacognitive, Compensation, Social, Memory, Cognitive, And Affective Strategy

INTRODUCTION

The success in learning language is influenced by the strategies that the

learners used. It seems undeniable that foreign language learners should be

equipped with appropriate learning strategies in order to learn target

language more effectively and efficiently because language learning is an

intentional and strategic effort (Chamot & O’Mellay, 1990). The usage of

mailto:[email protected]




78 | ELT Worldwide Vol. 2 No. 2 October 2015

appropriate learning strategies enables students to take responsibility for their own learning by enhancing learner autonomy, and self-direction. These

factors are important because learners need to keep on learning even when

they are no longer in a formal classroom setting (Oxford, 1990 p. 42).

Language learning strategy plays a significant role in L2/FL learning, due to

the fact that language learning strategies can help learners to facilitate the

acquisition, storage, retrieval or use of information and increase self-

confidence (Chang, Ching-Yi & Liu, Shu-Chen & Lee, Yi-Nan. 2007). In

other word, language learning strategies have an important role in students’

learning activities; it can help students to solve their problem in learning a

foreign language. In addition, Vann & Abraham (1990: 177) stated that

successful learners used strategies more appropriately in different situations

than unsuccessful learners, and used a large range of strategies in language

learning more frequently and appropriately.

Therefore, understanding what kinds of language learning strategies (LLS)

that the students employ to develop their English proficiency is a crucial

importance. Rubin (1975) suggested that knowing more about the strategies

“successful learners” select may be helpful. The reason is that unsuccessful

learners can adopt those strategies which are regarded as useful and valid by

successful learners. In this way, unsuccessful learners can enhance their

success record.

Since the early seventies, there has been a great concern in learner

characteristics rather than the methods of teaching in the field of second

language learning and teaching (Wenden & Rubin, 1987). Most researchers

began to notice that it is a must to identify the characteristics of successful

language learners and distinguish the differences of strategy use between

successful language learners and unsuccessful ones. Owing to the

differences in the frequency and types of strategy use, language learners are

divided into various levels of language performers.

It is expected that this way needed in guiding to achieve English proficiency

and to fulfil ESP for the students of merchant marine polytechnics especially

nautical department. The International Maritime Organization required the

students of merchant marine to have a good English proficiency to be

capable merchant-marine. The students are required to master English at the

4th semester before board-training for two semesters. During four semesters

in merchant marine polytechnics of Makassar, the four of English skills in

the acquisition of knowledge were taught in a coherent way. Each of skills;

listening, speaking, reading and writing were not taught distinctly or

separately, so the students learnt each skills distinctly by self taught.

Teaching integrated English skills were given accordance with the needs of

English for nautical-deck officer. The students are expected to be able to

Rustam, Hamra, Weda: The Language Learning Strategies Used by ... |79

master English proficiency in celestial & terrestrial navigation, electronics navigation system, compass & steering system, ship maneuvering &

handling, position fixing or determination, and also visual communication

nautical-deck on board.

The English continuous progression of merchant marine polytechnics in each

semester related to the learning that the students use and the method of

teacher in teaching especially English for nautical-deck officer. It is

supported by Richards and Rogers (2001) who said that the difference of

ability in mastering English has relationship with the ability of teacher in

conveying of learning, approach, the strategy applied, educational facilities or

infrastructure, environment, and motivation of student learning especially

English learning strategy.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Learning Strategies

Oxford (1990) explained that the word ‘strategy’ comes from the term

strategia. It is an ancient Greek term which is mostly used for war that

means generalship or the art of war. The word strategies influences to any

setting, including education. Oxford (1990:17) also drew learning strategies

into two major divisions. They are direct and indirect learning strategy in

which each of them has three parts. Furthermore, she mentioned that direct

strategy is just like the performer in a stage while indirect strategy is the

director of the play. Both performer and director have essential role to reach

a successful performance. Performers (direct strategies) are the main actors

that directly involved to the target language while the directors (indirect

strategies) are indirectly involved to the target language (Husain, 2011:43),

but they are important for general management in learning target language.

Direct learning strategies consist of memory strategy, cognitive strategy and

compensation strategy. Meanwhile, the indirect learning strategies consist of

metacognitive strategy, affective strategy and social strategy.

The scope in each of those strategies will be elaborated as follows:

1. Memory Strategies. This is a kind of strategy which is claimed by

Oxford as the strategy that has been used for thousands years, it is also

sometimes called mnemonic.

2. Cognitive Strategies. Different from the previous strategy, the cognitive

strategy had been mentioned by several experts before Oxford did.

Cognitive strategies described as the strategies that enable the learners

to interact with the material by manipulating it mentally such as

grouping the items or taking note on important information to be

remembered.


3. Compensation Strategies. This is valuable for the language learners to

solve the knowledge limitation problems both to understand and to

produce language.

Another three strategies are classified as indirect strategies that will be

elaborated as follows:

1. Metacognitive Strategies. This is the first strategy explained by Oxford

as indirect strategy, in which has function for general management of

learning. The involved strategies concentrate to centering, arranging,

planning and evaluating learning.

2. Affective Strategies. Oxford explained that the affective strategies are

essential to control the language learners’ learning in the sense of

emotions, attitudes, motivations and values.

3. Social Strategies. The last strategy mentioned by Oxford is social

strategies. Language and social behavior are two things that cannot be

separated, because the actualization of language is in communication.

There are three reasons proposed by Chang (1992) to delineate why

language learning strategies are important. First, learners’ language learning

may become more efficient and effective by using appropriate learning

strategies. Learners take certain actions which have been referred to as

learning strategies to help learning smoother, faster, and more effective

(Oxford, 1990). Second, the use of language learning strategies, according to

Wenden’s (1987) viewpoint, is to fulfill the goal of facilitating learner

autonomy. Since language learning is a lifelong task and learning the

language only through teacher’ instruction in classroom is not enough.

Hence, students should develop their autonomous ability for learning outside

the college. Third, language learning strategies are supplementary means to

solve the difficulties learners encountered in second language learning. In

this way, the process of language learning will be facilitated and improved

with the higher frequency of using appropriate learning strategies.

In sum, language learning strategies are the causes and outcomes of

successful language learning. Language learning strategies not only help

learners to develop autonomy but also enable them to become good language

learners and make language learning faster but effective. Good Language Learner

The main goal in learning a language is how student can be a good language

learner because there is an awareness of learners that learning English is

very important thing for us, that’s why language learners try to know how to

learn a language, not just what to learn. By knowing the characteristics of


good language learners can help students increase their language learning

efficiency.

Most of early the studies in the field of language learning strategies focused

on identifying the characteristics of good language learner. Identifying and

discussing the strategies used by good language learners are considered as a

good way to make the learners aware of the notion of language learning

strategies. Rubin & Thompson (1982:53-54) mention the following

characteristics for good language learners:

1. Good language learners find their own and take charge of their

meaning. They determine the methods that are best for them as

individual learners. They learn from others and experiment with

different methods.

2. Good language learners organize their study of the language and they

organize information about the language they study.

3. Good language learners are creative. They understand that language is

creative. They experiment with the language and play with grammar,

words and sounds.

4. Good language learners make their own opportunities for practicing the

language inside and outside of the classroom.

5. Good language learners learn to live with uncertainty by focusing on the

meaning of what they can understand, by not getting flustered, and by

continuing to talk or listen without necessarily understanding every

word. 6. Good language learners use mnemonics and other memory strategies to

recall what they are learning.

7. Good language learners make errors work for them and not against

them.

8. Good language learners use linguistic knowledge, including knowledge

of their first language, in learning a second language. 9. Good language learners use contextual clues to aid their comprehension

of the language. They maximize use of all potential contexts around the

language attended to for enhancing comprehension.

10. Good language learners learn to make intelligent guesses.

11. Good language learners learn chunks of language as wholes and

formalized routines to help them perform beyond their competence. For

example, they may learn idioms, proverbs, or other phrases knowing

what the whole phrase means without necessarily understanding each

individual part. 12. Good language learners learn certain tricks that keep conversation

going.

13. Good language learners learn certain production techniques that also fill

in the gaps in their own competence.


14. Good language learners learn different styles of speech or writing to

learn to vary their language according to the formality of the situation.

Wenden (1990:174) stated that there are nine characteristics of a good

language learner, they are:

1. Good language learners find a style of learning that suits them.

2. Good language learners are actively involved in the language learning

process.

3. Good language learners try to figure out how the language works.

4. Good language learners know that language is used to communicate.

5. Good language learners learn to think in the language.

6. Good language learners realize that language learning is not easy.

7. Good language learners have a long term commitment to language

learning.

This study concerns about kinds of learning strategies by Oxford (1990)

because it elaborates the notion of “strategy” and examines a kind of

learning strategies. Successful learners however learn to adopt active

strategies of their own, incorporating monitoring behavior into their learning

skills. In this research, to investigate the learning strategies of students, SILL

(Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) was used. The SILL was

designed for students of English as a second language or foreign language. It

is divided into six parts; each will tell the kinds of strategies used in learning

English. They are Remembering more effectively (Memory strategies),

Using all mental processes (Cognitive strategies), Compensating for missing

knowledge (Compensation strategies), Organizing and evaluating learning

(Metacognitive strategies), Managing your emotions (Affective strategies),

and Learning with others (Social strategies). METHOD

This research used descriptive quantitative method. This research was

employed to investigate about the students’ language learning strategies used

by the students in learning English. The population of this research was the

fourth semester merchant marine students of nautical class-C in Merchant

Marine Studies Polytechnics or Politeknik Ilmu Pelayaran (PIP) Makassar in

academic year 2014/2015. It consisted of six classes. It consisted of 30

students for each class. The total of the population was 180 students. The

researcher used cluster random sampling to select groups. After selecting

randomly, the class-C of nautical class was chosen as a sample.

This research was carried out by using English skills tests and a

questionnaire survey. The tests were administered to know the students’

achievement in learning English for each skill.


The questionnaire of SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning)

developed by Rebecca in Oxford (1990) was used in this research to obtain

information and to act as a stimulus for ideas about language learning

strategy. The SILL uses a 5-point Likert scale for which the learners were

guided to respond to a strategy description, and the criteria used for

evaluating the degree of strategy use frequency are: low frequency use (1.0 -

2.49), moderate frequency use (2.5 -3.49), and high frequency use (3.5 - 5.0).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings

Language Learning Strategies Used by the Students

Based on SILL Questionnaire, there are six kinds of language learning strategies used by the students of merchant marine polytechnics or PIP

Makassar in English class. The data shows that each student has different

kinds of learning strategies. Data are clearly presented in the 4.1 table:

Table 4.1 The Percentage and Frequency Table of Students’

Language Learning Strategies

Language Learning

Strategies Frequency Percentage

Memory 3 10 %

Cognitive 3 10 %

Compensation 7 23.33 %

Metacognitive 11 36.67 %

Affective 2 6.67 %

Social 4 13.33 %

Total 30 100 %

Based on the table 4.1, the merchant marine or PIP students of Makassar

apply all kinds of Language Learning Strategies. They are Memory Strategy,

Cognitive Strategy, Compensation Strategy, Metacognitive Strategy,

Affective Strategy, and Social Strategy. Metacognitive Strategy included as

the most dominantly used strategies in learning English skill which applied

36.67% (11 students) among 30 students in nautical class. Compensation

Strategy is the second strategy which dominantly used 23.33% (7 students)

in the class. The third dominantly used strategy is Social Strategy which

applied by 13.33% (4 students). These three strategies followed by Memory


and Cognitive Strategy with 10% (3 students) for each strategy, and

Affective Strategy with 6.67% (2 students). The SILL questionnaires were

analyzed by using a 5-point Likert scale. The learners are guided to respond

to a strategy description, and the criteria used for evaluating the degree of

strategy use frequency are:

Table 4.2 The Percentage and the Frequency Table of Students’ LLS in

Likert Scale Classifications

Based on the table 4.2 above, it can be seen that High classification was used

by 16 students with 54 %, followed by Average classification was used by

13 students with 44 %, and Low classification was used by 1 students with 2

%.

Related to the findings above, the researcher made the strategies in line by

concerning on the mean score. The following table is the students’ mean

score of six strategies:

Table 4.3 The Mean Score of Language Learning Strategies Used by

the Students

Memory Cognitive Compensation Metacognitive Affective Social

Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy

Mean 3.32 3.42 3.73 3.81 3.15 3.65

Based on the table 4.3 above, it can be seen that Metacognitive Strategy that

was used mostly by the students in the class gained mean score 3.81. It was

followed by Compensation Strategy with 3.73 and the third was Social

Strategy with 3.65; the three learning strategies were in a high category.

Meanwhile, the last three learning strategies were in average category in

which Cognitive Strategy was 3.42, Memory Strategy with 3.32 and

Affective Strategy with 3.15.

No Classification Range

Students Score

Frequency Percentage

1 High 3.5 – 5.0 16 54 %

2 Average 2.5 – 3.49 13 44 %

3 Low 1.0 – 2.49 1 2 %

TOTAL 30 100 %


The Most Dominant Language Learning Strategies Used by the Students

Over 30 students, there are students which are categorized as successful and

unsuccessful students in English skill. The scores were classified into four

levels as follows:

Table 4.4 The Percentage and the Frequency Table of Successful

and Unsuccessful Students

Classification Score Successful Unsuccessful

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Very Good 91 - 100 8 44.44 0 0

Good 81 - 90 10 55.56 0 0

Fair 71 - 80 0 0 5 41.6

Poor < 70 0 0 7 58.4

Total 18 100 % 12 100 %

Table 4.4 shows that the successful students were in very good and good

category. The aggregate percentage of successful students; 44.44% (8

students) categorized as very good and good category was 55.56% (10

students). While in the unsuccessful students, there were 41.6% (5 students)

in fair whereas poor category was 58.4% (7 students).

It can be concluded that there were 18 students categorized as successful

students in English skill and 12 unsuccessful students in English skill. After

getting the scores and classification from table 4.4, then the previous

obtained data of the students’ language learning strategies were divided into

the successful and unsuccessful students. Then, the data was classified into

the most dominant language learning strategies.


The Most Dominant Language Learning Strategies Used by the Successful

Students.

Table 4.5 LLS’s Used by The Successful Students in English Skill

(High Achiever Classification)

No Students

Name

Dominant Language Learning Strategies

Memory

Strategy

Cognitive

Strategy

Compensati

on Strategy

Metacogniti

ve Strategy

Affective

Strategy

Social

Strategy

Dominant

LLs

1 AAG

M 2.6 3.2 3.8 4.8 3.5 4.3 4.8

2 AAP 3.6 3.8 4.2 4.7 2.7 3.8 4.7

3 H 3.3 4.1 4.3 4.7 3.7 4.0 4.7

4 MRP 3.3 3.9 4.2 4.6 3.5 4.3 4.6

5 HS 2.6 2.4 3.2 4.6 3.0 4.0 4.6

6 BA 4.2 4.2 3.8 4.6 3.3 3.8 4.6

7 BL 2.7 3.3 3.5 4.6 2.5 3.7 4.6

8 AFB

M 3.2 3.8 3.8 4.3 3.0 3.5 4.3

9 IPR 3.9 3.6 3.2 4.3 2.8 3.5 4.3

10 AU 3.1 2.7 3.2 4.2 3.2 3.0 4.2

11 IH 2.9 2.8 3.2 4.2 3.8 3.7 4.2

12 IS 3.8 4.2 4.8 3.7 2.7 4.0 4.8

13 JJ 3.9 3.6 4.5 3.6 3.2 4.2 4.5

14 FS 3.8 3.1 4.3 3.4 2.8 4.2 4.3

15 HAD 3.2 3.9 4.0 3.4 2.8 3.5 4.0

16 HM 3.4 3.2 4.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 4.0

17 FR 3.3 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.7 3.5 4.0

18 I 2.6 2.9 3.7 3.2 2.2 3.0 3.7

Table 4.5 displays that the most dominant used language learning strategies

among the successful students was metacognitive strategy and followed by

compensation strategy at the second place. There were 11 successful students

used metacognitive strategy and 7 successful students used compensation

strategy in English skill.


Table 4.6 LLS’s Used by Unsuccessful Students in English Skill

(Low Achiever Classification)

No Students Name

Dominant Language Learning Strategies

Memory Strategy

Cognitive Strategy

Compensation Strategy

Metacognitive Strategy

Affective Strategy

Social Strategy

Dominant LLs

1 A

3.7 3.6 4.0 3.4 2.8 4.5 4.5

2 JA

4.1 3.6 4.2 4.1 3.3 4.3 4.3

3 F

4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.2 4.3 4.3

4 IKWS

3.2 2.8 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.8 3.8

5 K

3.7 3.0 3.7 3.2 3.5 3.2 3.7

6 IDS

3.7 3.1 3.2 3.6 2.8 3.0 3.7

7 H

3.1 2.2 2.7 3.0 2.7 2.7 3.1

8 EM

3.0 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.4

9 AESN

3.1 3.9 2.8 3.2 2.8 3.7 3.9

10 AB

2.2 3.9 3.5 3.6 2.7 2.8 3.9

11 IB

3.4 3.0 3.7 3.2 4.2 3.2 4.2

12 MIRP

3.2 3.6 2.7 2.9 3.7 3.0 3.7

Based on the table 4.6 above, the unsuccessful students were in social

strategy of the 12 students, 4 students chose the strategy, followed by

memory strategy; only 3 students chose this strategy. It can be seen also that

there were 3 students in cognitive strategy and 2 students in affective

strategy. So, it can be concluded that metacognitive strategy is the most

dominant language learning strategy used from all the students of nautical

class in Merchant Marine Studies Polytechnics or Politeknik Ilmu Pelayaran

(PIP) Makassar.

The Differences of LLS Employed by Successful and Unsuccessful

Students.

In order to see whether there are any differences of language learning

strategies which are employed by successful and unsuccessful students or

not, table 4.7 presents the percentage and frequency table of the successful

and unsuccessful students in using different language learning strategies that can be seen in the following tables.


Table 4.7 The Percentage & Frequency Table of the Successful

& Unsuccessful Students in Using Different LLS

Classification Score LLS Successful LLS Uunsuccessful

Metacognitive Compensation F % Social Memory Cognitive Affective F %

Very

Good 91 - 100 5 Students 3 Students 8 44.44 0 Student 0 Student 0 Student 0 Student 0 0

Good 81 - 90 6 Students 4 Students 10 55.56 0 Student 0 Student 0 Student 0 Student 0 0

Fair 71 - 80 0 Student 0 Student 0 0 1 Student 2 Students 2 Students 0 Students 5 41.6

Poor < 70 0 Student 0 Student 0 0 3 Students 1 Student 1 Student 2 Students 7 58.4

Total Mean Score: 90.27 18 100 Mean Score: 69.58 12 100

Based on the table 4.7 above, it can be seen from the successful category that

a very good classification was used by 44.44% (8 students) who had two

learning strategies which was consisted of 5 students from metacognitive

strategy and 3 students from compensation strategy. Meanwhile, there were

55.56% (10 students) in good classification that involved the same learning

strategies with 6 students from metacognitive strategy and 4 students from

compensation strategy.

It can be seen also that the unsuccessful category was used by 41.6% (5

students) in fair classification and 58.4% (7 students) in poor classification.

Both classifications were divided into four learning strategies which were

consisted of 4 students in social strategy, 3 students in memory and cognitive

for each and 2 students in affective strategy. From table 4.7, the mean score

of successful students’ category was higher than successful students (90.27 >

69.58) where the interval was 20.69. It indicated that the mean score in

successful or high achiever students was classified as good, whereas the

unsuccessful or low achiever students were categorized as poor.

The matrix distribution in each English skill of the successful or high

achiever and unsuccessful or low achiever can be seen in table 4.8. This

table shows the most English skill mastered by successful and unsuccessful

students that correlated to their language learning strategy.


Table 4.8 The Matrix Table of Each English Skill with Different LLS

LLS English Skill Category

of Class

Number of

Students Percentage

Listening Speaking Reading Writing

Memory // / / // Unsuccessful 3 Students 10

Cognitive / - - // Unsuccessful 3 Students 10

Compensation //// // //// ////// Successful 7 Students 23.33

Metacognitive ///// // ////// ////// Successful 11 Students 36.67

Affective - - / // Unsuccessful 2 Students 6.67

Social / / // /// Unsuccessful 4 Students 13.33

Table 4.8 illustrates that the successful students were more dominant in

reading and writing skill than other skills. It can be seen that 6 students got a

good score for each skill; reading and writing. They used metacognitive

learning strategy in studying English. For the students who used

compensation strategy were good in writing skill with 6 achievers.

Meanwhile, the unsuccessful students were more dominant in writing and

listening skill than other skills. The students who used social learning

strategy was good in writing skill with 3 achievers and followed by 2

achievers for each learning strategies; memory, cognitive and affective

learning strategy. For those who used memory learning strategy not only got

a good score in writing but also in listening with 2 achievers.

Based on the table 4.8 above, it can be concluded that the successful students

who used metacognitive and compensation strategy were more dominant in

reading and writing skill than other skills. Meanwhile, the unsuccessful

students who used memory, cognitive and affective learning strategy were

more dominant in writing and listening skill than other skills.

In sum, the explanation above that is shown in the following table 4.9 briefly

stated that all students both successful and unsuccessful category used

different language learning strategies.


Table 4.9 LLS Used by Successful and Unsuccessful Students

No. LLSs

Category of Class

Successful

Students

Unsuccessful

Students

1 Memory Strategies

2 Cognitive Strategies

3 Compensation

Strategies

4 Metacognitive

Strategies

5 Affective Strategies

6 Social Strategies

Table 4.9 shows six language learning strategies usually employed by the

students in English skill. The successful students employed two kinds of

language learning strategies namely metacognitive and compensation

strategy, while the unsuccessful students employed four kinds of language

learning strategies. The four language learning strategies used by the

unsuccessful students are memory strategy, cognitive strategy, affective

strategy, and social strategy. The information on the table 4.9 shows that

successful students use both kinds of direct and indirect strategy while

unsuccessful students tended to use indirect strategies and direct strategies

more dominant than successful students.

Discussion Kinds of Students Language Learning Strategies

The subjects of this research used metacognitive strategy most dominantly,

followed by compensation, social, memory, cognitive, and affective strategy

as the last used. This result is in line with Dhanapala’s (2007) findings of

language learning strategies learners in Japan and Sri Langka with

metacognitive strategy ranked the highest. The students‘ response indicated

that the students tended to apply strategies when learning English. It also

meant that learning strategies played an important role in their learning

English, and they were aware of using them in their process of learning

English.


However, Davis and Abas’ in Chen (215:2005) research of Indonesian

language faculty with SILL 7.0 revealed that Indonesian language specialist

showed high use of metacognitive, social, compensation, cognitive, and

memory strategies and medium use of affective strategies. Deneme’s (2008)

study of Turkish students showed that high use of metacognitive and

compensation strategies, and medium use of memory, cognitive, affective

and social strategies. As for Saricoban and Saricougla (2008), using the

SILL 7.0 with 263 students at preparatory class students at School of Foreign

Languages at Erciyes University, found that the strategies used more than

the others by the students are metacognitive and compensation strategies,

while affective strategies are used the least by them. Those findings are

similarly to this finding that the fourth semester merchant marine studies

polytechnics or PIP students used metacognitive as the most frequently

strategies in English skill and compensation as the second strategy. The third

frequently strategy used is social strategy and followed by memory,

cognitive and affective strategies.

So, it can be concluded that the merchant marine studies polytechnics or PIP

students of Makassar used all language learning strategy which is based on

the theory from Deneme (2008) who conducted a research about language

learning strategy preference of Turkish students. The researcher found that

the participants applied all strategies in learning English skill.

The Most Dominant Language Learning Strategies Used by the Studen.

The researcher found that successful students used more, varied, and better

learning strategies than unsuccessful students. It can be seen from the data

gained from the students’ English skill test result. Mostly successful

students who learn using metacognitive strategy succeed in English skill

test. It might happend because merchant marine or PIP students are

trained firmly and discipline by focusing on centering, arranging, planning

and evaluating the learning particularly in learning English. Meanwhile, the

unsuccessful students dominantly used social strategy instead of

metacognitive startegy. These findings related to O’Malley et al. (1985) that

learners without metacognitive approaches have no direction or ability to

monitor their progress, accomplishments, and future learning directions.

On the other hand, learners who have developed their metacognitive

awareness are likely to become more autonomous language learners

(Hauck, 2005). However, Devito (2011) investigated also about social

language learning strategies that go hand in hand with communication, but

the process of communication is not simple. So, the most dominant

language learning strategy here is metacognitive strategy for the successful

students and social strategy for the unsuccessful students.


The Differences of LLS Used by Successful and Unsuccessful Students. This research found that successful students used metacognitive strategy as

the most dominant in usage, followed by compensation strategy as the

second usage. Meanwhile, unsuccessful students used social strategy as the

most dominant in usage and followed with memory, cognitive and affective

strategy as the least used. The result of this research indicated that there is a

significant different in using language learning strategies between successful

students and unsuccessful students. The more the learning strategies used,

the higher the student performance was. This result is consistent with the

results of Simsek and Balaban (2010) indicating that successful students used more, varied, and better learning strategies than unsuccessful students.

The quantitative data showed that successful students who used

metacognitive more dominantly succeed in English skill after getting some

tests in the form of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Whereas, the

most dominant language learning strategy used by unsuccessful students in

English skill was social strategy with the same form of English skill test in

successful students. The data obtained that six learning strategies (memory

strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive

strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies) were used by students.

The successful students employed two kinds of language learning strategies

namely metacognitive and compensation strategy, while the unsuccessful

students employed four kinds of language learning strategies. The four

language learning strategies used by the unsuccessful students are memory

strategy, cognitive strategy, affective strategy, and social strategy. In this

respect, successful students use both kinds of direct and indirect strategy

while unsuccessful students tended to use indirect strategies and direct

strategies more dominant than successful students.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter presents the conclusion and suggestion based on the findings

and discussion of the data analysis.

Conclusion

Based on the research findings and discussion in the previous chapter, the

researcher concludes that:

The students of merchant marine polytechnics or Politeknik Ilmu

Pelayaran (PIP) Makassar particularly in nautical class used six kinds of

language learning strategies. Metacognitive strategy marked as the most

frequently used strategy in English skills followed by compensation, social,

memory, cognitive, and affective the least used. The most dominant

language learning strategy is Metacognitive strategy for successful students

and Social strategy for unsuccessful students. There is a difference in using

language learning strategies between successful students and unsuccessful

students.


Suggestion

Based on the conclusions above, the researcher put forwards some suggestions

and recommendations as follows:

It is suggested to the students to use the wide variety of learning

strategies in order to obtain their satisfactory learning outcomes. It is

advisable for each language lecturer to detect the language learning

strategies of their students and help them compensate the missing areas

in their strategy preference and use. Since this research only identified

the learning strategies of university students, it is suggested for

further research should examine what really happens if all students go

through strategy training as early as possible in their educational experiences.

REFERENCES

Chang, S. J. and S. C. H. (1992). Language Learning Motivation and

Language Strategies of Taiwanese EFL Students. Washington, DC:

Department of Education. (ERIC: Document Reproduction Service

No. ED371589).

Chang, Ching-Yi & Liu, Shu-Chen & Lee, Yi-Nan. (2007). A Study of

Language Learning Strategies Used by College EFL Learners in

Taiwan. Mingdao University Journal, Vol. 3/2.

Chen, Yueh-Miao. (2005). The Learning Strategies of Taiwanese University

Students: English Majors Versus Non-English Majors and Males

Versus Females. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching,

Vol. 1/no.2.

Deneme, S. (2008). Language Learning Strategy Preferences of Turkish

Students.Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2.

Devito, J. A. ( 2011). Komunikasi Antar Manusia. Pamulang: Karisma

Publishing Group.

Hauck, M. (2005). Metacognitive Knowledge, Strategies & CALL. In J.Egbert

& G. Petrie (eds.), CALL research perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Pages 65–86.

Husain, D. (2011). Fostering Autonomous Learning Inside and Outside the

Classroom in Language Learning. Makassar: Badan Penerbit

UNM.


O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., &

Kupper, L. 1985. Learning Strategy Applications With Students of

English As a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 285-296.

O’Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. U. ( 1990). Learning Strategies in

Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: Whatever

Teacher Should Know. Boston, MA: Heinle Publishers.

Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods

in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin. J. (1987). Learner Strategies: Theoretical Assumptions, Research

History and Typology. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner

Strategies in Language Learning (pp.15-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Rubin. J. (1975). What the “Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us.

TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-50.

Rubin, J., and Thompson, I. (1982). How to be a More Successful

Language Learner. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Saricoban, A., and Saricaouglu, A. (2008). The Effects of the Relationship

Between Learning and Teaching Strategies on Academic

Achievement. Novitas-Royal.Vol.: 2 (2), (pp. 162-175).

Simsek, Ali., and Blaban, J. (2010). Learning Strategies of Successful and

Unsuccesful University Students.Contemporary Educational

Technology. Anadolu University, Turkey, 1(1), (pp. 36-45).

Vann, R. J. and Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of Unsuccessful

Language Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24, (pp. 177-198).

Wenden, A. 1990 Helping Language Learners Think about Learning’ in

Currents of Change in English Language Teaching.By Rossner and

Bolitho (p.174).

Wenden, A. L. 1987. Conceptual Background and Utility. In A. L. Wenden

& J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning(pp.

3-13). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Documents

The Language Learning Strategies Used by Students of